The building of a wall to determine who enters the national home of any nation is as logical and as natural as are the walls and fences that enclose our own homes and yards. Even the animal kingdom understands the importance of boundaries and the right to determine who enters their space. Beavers establish their turf with dams, birds with nests, ants with underground colonies and bees with hives.

At the dawn of civilization, people gathered together to construct walls around their cities for safety. We understand this natural principle today when we establish militaries and police and when we lock the doors to our homes and cars. Ancient Rome built walls across northern Europe and Britain to contain invasions by Germans and Scots. China built a great wall to contain the Mongols. The wall around Constantinople protected the Eastern Roman Empire for over a thousand years. Today, Israel has a barrier that has reduced suicide bombing by 95 percent. In his poem “Mending Wall” American poet laureate Robert Frost acknowledged this natural institution when he wrote: Good fences make good neighbors.

Americans understand that inherent in the concept of property is the right to determine its usage. The individual and the family thus retains the lawful right to determine who enters their home and how long the invitation is extended. Several amendments to the U.S. Constitution expressly delineatethis right. Violators commit a form of coercion that could raise to the level of breaking and entering. Such violations are a form of theft.

The sovereign nation acts as the protector of the national home and, as such, the government is empowered with the responsibility to determine who enters. For the same reason that the individual is under no obligation to explain why he or she denies the entry of any person into their private home, the nation owes no such explanation for its immigration or visa policies. There is no such thing as a right, either in nature or in international law and custom, for any person to travel without a permit from one nation to another.

Yet today we are confronted with the inexplicable and bizarre phenomena of politicians suggesting that our nation should not protect our border from intruders who have not obtained proper permission to enter. These same politicians would be loath to assume this same stance regarding their own private homes. We are told that an open border is somehow a virtue and that our opposition to it is regressive and prejudiced.

These same politicians project the principle, perhaps unwittingly, that all borders, that all separations between people, that private property and, at the core, that individual identity itself is regressive and prejudiced. This may not be their conscious intention in refusing to secure the national home but this is, de facto, the philosophy that they uphold. Therefore their support of the insane policy of open borders is usually expressed incoherently and in a jargon of vague obfuscation.

The central promise of the candidacy of Donald Trump was that he would build the wall. This was the main reason why he was elected. Now President Trump appears to be waffling on this promise as he talks about fences, drones, increases in law enforcement and the like. While President Trump deserves congratulations for the 70 percent reduction in newly arriving illegal aliens, for detaining and deporting dangerous criminals, and for strengthening points of entry we must hold him to his promise to build the wall.

The wall would serve both as a permanent barrier against unannouncedguests and as a permanent break on the globalist ambitions of future politicians who might harbor bad intentions.

Chuck Morse is a radio host who broadcasts live Thursday's at 10 a.m. ET at WMFO-Tufts. Chuck hosts the podcast "Chuck Morse Speaks" on iTunes and Stitcher and his books are available on Amazon.com. For more of his reports — Click Here Now.